[_::_] Response to Mulroy's Myth of the Bad Old Days

_-=-_
{} {}

According to Mulroy:

Groups such as ATEG who stand behind the idea that Grammar should be taught are accurate in their beliefs and will soon receive a surge in followers. However, there are things holding them back. For one, they view the traditional teaching methods of grammar as fundamentally flawed. This may not be the complete truth, granted that many individuals owe their knowledge of grammar to the old ways of teaching. So, it could be said that the traditional methods do not need a complete overhaul.

Reed and Kellogg might agree. With exorcises found in their text books they urged students memorize rules and read examples (a traditional way to teach grammar).

Nowadays students are given kernel sentences and urged to combine them all into a simpler sentence with all the given information. Reed and Kellogg did something similar in giving students sentence they must complete by inventing the appropriate phrase (with prompts of time, place, and manner for example). This method allows for creativity.

Reed and Kellogg also make use of sentence diagramming. They use a method which relies on lines and separation of function - and similarly a fellow by the name of Clark makes use of bubbles. Some people have remarked that sentence diagramming is too confusing with lines going in all directions - which is a gross overstatement. There are only three types of lines used in the Reed and Kellogg sentence diagramming. Compare this to the newer idea of tree diagramming, which is held back by the fact that it MUST result in "as-spoken" sentences, not to mention the numerous branches and titles trickling down, and you can see how the traditional sentence diagramming is more understandable. Keep in mind, both methods relay the same information and show the same knowledge of grammar. As an added perk, diagramming can help one understand difficult sentences of English as well as other languages!

My response to this:

I agree that sentence diagramming is useful. I did it for the first time in my Grammar course with Dr. Benton just this semester. I felt I learned more in that section of the class than in any other.

I agree that tree diagramming looks over-the-top difficult. I wouldn't want to do it at all.

I agree that the traditional teaching methods of grammar were useful and did teach students about grammar. I even agree that we don't have to completely overhaul the entire history of grammar teaching to continue teaching effectively. In this case, I can see change as going either direction - it takes off, or it crashes and burns.

To sum my opinion up, I agree. There wasn't much room to disagree when the majority of that discussed points to common sense stuff. As in, grammar is good, the history of teaching grammar taught grammar, and diagramming sentences works. On a happy side note, I can make a wall of side-ways bricks with text, watch: i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!

Question!

1. The definite-answer question:

Other than the lack of poetry, history, rhetoric, and ethics - and therefore the lack of the need to understand such things using grammar - what is one other reason that Mulroy gives for the death of grammar in the past?

2. The open-ended questions:

-Explain how the ideas Mulroy expresses regarding grammar and its lack of importance in the past echo things happening today.

-Give an example of an idea that Mulroy expressed in chapter three that you disagree with. Why do you disagree? Proof? Reasoning?

3. Diagram the first question.

Take the middle road, one must.

1. Mulroy sees the rules that govern liberal arts a innate - almost like Socrates, except Socrates believed it was innate because we knew of it in a prior-to-life state in another realm (or some such idea). He, meaning Mulroy, also believes that the liberal arts are "ground rules for thought."

2. Well, Mulroy thinks they are letting too many things slip into the category of 'liberal arts'. He also throws back to some of Plato's ideas stating that rhetoric was the least important or repectable of the liberal arts (because it merely pleased others, but wasn't a true art, an idea not shared by all, resulting in the continual presence of rhetoric in instruction despite opinions) - while grammar was always important and accepted as a necessary tool.

It seems to me that Mulroy placed more of an emphasis on the fields of study that help students gain insight on values, language, culture (and other abstract ideas), rather than the concrete fields like mathematics or medicine. Those concrete fields have a purpose, but they must be learned and are not innate. (I like the example that it is easier to talk someone into understanding an idea, than it is to talk someone into know where a liver is. You must look for a physcial location for the liver, but the idea is something you can personally manifest). Also, unlike the 'liberal arts' the concrete and specific fields are not a foundation for all learning.

Playing off of that idea, I think that those concrete and specific fields that ready someone for a career and such are only understandable with that foundation of the general studies or liberal arts. Those things make a person a more well-rounded individual and aid them in understanding any other intellectual endeavours they choose to follow. Sort of like how you can't muliply or divide until you know that a number represents a certain value of being. Two things are more than one of the same thing. Four things are indeed four seperate individual things. Actually, you'd need to know that there is a NEED for these values before you can multiply or divide. But the main point is, you need to know the foundations before you can move on to the specifics.

In all actuality, though, it is possible for a person who was instructed only in a specific field, only to fulfill a certain job, to be successful at that job. However, that would make for rather dull and barely helpful doctors and business men - and much worse chatting buddies.

In regards to the instruction of grammar, the middle of the road would be the best path to take. To show that grammar enables a student to think abstractly and express and learn effectively is a great thing. But to let them know that grammar will also directly help them in the field they end up working in would also be quite helpful.

Interview with Dr. Sukholutskaya

In an interview with Dr. Mara Sukholutskaya regarding the current state of grammar and the importance of literal meaning, the following was established:

According to Dr. Sukholutskaya, there is no trend resulting in the lessoning of literal meaning. Certain forms of writing require the reader to read into things figuratively or interpret, but that doesn't mean that literal meaning has fallen into any sort of disfavor. Also, it is a natural part of language for certain words to take on new meanings. Like the American-English use of the word "gay," with which an entirely new meaning has surfaced, and it was certainly not the core literal meaning. Similarly, the Russian word "goluboy," meaning light-blue, has taken on the same connotations. However, for these such words with multiple and changing meanings, there are many more with a strict always-literal meaning.

Regarding Grammar, Dr. Sukholutskaya is outspoken and finds grammar to be very important. She has noticed a decline in the importance of grammar, both by students and by teachers. She has also noticed a general shift into laxation. Students no longer wear respectful clothing, and their use of language and respect for language mirror such.

Dr. Sukholutskaya gave a very effective example in pointing out how you never see someone in a tuxedo or evening gown using improper grammar. This statement, in conjunction with the image of the average college student today, seems to express Dr. Sukholutskaya's opinion on the current state of grammar in academia.

I done ain't say we be taught EnGliSh

Of course we need to teach Standard Written English in schools. It should be important for every person who is so kindly forced to tread through the swamps of hell known as grade school to at least understand how to effectively communicate and be understood. I'd also be a little pissed if I had lived through junior high and high school just to graduate and be no wiser to the things essential in continuing my education, communicating with my peers, and generally living life while being understood. At the very least, all the little kiddies need to learn how to communicate to a wider audience just to up their chances on obtaining a mate and producing spawn.

We've learned, in this grammar course alone, that Standard Written English helps us communicate in a current and understandable way, that also allows our thoughts and ideas to be understood for years to come. Learning how to write in the socially and culturally accepted language, regardless of what that language is, should innately better someone. Just like with my thoughts before studying the opinions of the battle-hardened scholars interested in grammar, I still believe that being understood is the meaning of language. However, instead of accepting our naturally picked up sense of language to get us by, I now see the importance of learning the widely accepted "accurate" form of the language.

From what we have learned so far, I would assume that the best teaching method to assign to teaching SWE would be starting out with the fundamentals. To begin, the student should understand a common array of words and their meanings. They should also have the knowledge of grammar picked up from those surrounding them. From that, you could build up their knowledge of grammar, in order to aid them in understanding everything they will be learning about the language. After they have a good solid foundation, then it would be best to start in on effectively expressing your own ideas and interpreting other individual's ideas as well.

It almost seems like common sense that you must know how a language works before you can do any sort of expressing with it.

But, I do believe that I wasn't taught enough about grammar at an earlier age. This has probably been a detriment to me, and anyone else in the same boat.

The following is an effort to summarize "The Scandal of Prescriptivism" by David Mulroy.

Currently, there are negative stereotypes associated with those who use grammar incorrectly, and those concerned with correct usage. Most of the grammatical mistakes made today are found within the groups of children, the poor, and minorities. This strengthens the negative stereotypes associated with incorrect grammar usage. Also, those who are preoccupied with correctness are often seen as old, stuck up, and arbitrary. Despite these negative associations, the continuation of a solid, correct dialect is still useful.

Having one accepted appropriate broadens the numbers of people one can effectively communicate with. To understand how that is so, consider what Caxton wrote in the preface to his Eneydos translation, within which a fellow travels not-so-far from home and eventually asks a lady for eggs. The women replies to him that she can not speak French, when in reality, neither of the two could, the lack of understanding spawned from the differences in the English dialects at the time.

The need for a common dialect was and is apparent. In the past, it was difficult attempting to unite everyone under one dialect, until the popularity of dictionaries allowed everyone to study one grammatical dialect.

[Insert quote from Pinker's piece which we have just read for class, then insert a subsequent quote from an Illinois professor by the name of Hook, and finally insert the debilitating counter-points that both writers do not directly cite those whom they attack, but instead use pop-culture references to prove their points, as opposed to the more tasteful use of Bible versus and such.]

Some points that Pinker brought up in opposition to prescriptivist ideas are correct, and some are wrong or inappropriate for the point being made. His idea that we all communicate effectively and grammatically through natural and unlearned methods is denied by the fact that while writing the piece to prove the point, Pinker exhibits appropriate use of punctuation and grammatical features not possibly known with having been taught. The idea that grammar is entirely instinctual is unlikely.

Resulting from the popular fad of bashing grammatical correctness and its being taught, teachers are trained to be nice, and avoid possibly offending children by not correcting their grammatical mistakes.

This is greatly ineffective in continuing a solid central dialect. There is, however, a popular reason for learning our current standard dialect (SWE). It is said that if one wants to make it in the business or academic world, one must understand the language or dialect used by those parties. This is actually a cynical way to look at it, because it assumes that understanding the central dialect has no uses other than to gain popularity with groups (when in fact, there are greater reasons to understand SWE, or whatever the standard is for your language).

Professor Hada's view on literal meaning

Perhaps literal meanings have fallen into doubt because of two factors:

1) A rebirth of fundamentalism, i.e., a knee-jerk appeal by the masses to resist the mis-perceived, out-of-touch academics who read into everything. So the masses, cling to something that is one-dimensional to validate themselves and by contrast, distinguish themselves from the so-called elites. Thus, academics, tend to distrust all the more, one dimensional readings.

2) And closely related, with the arrival of the 60's and the advent of post-modernism, many theoretical scholars became enamored with theory at the expense of text. This is a pendulum swingfrom the formalist, new-critics, and some theorists went to the opposite extremes whereby they sacrificed the plain meaning of a text on the alter of extravagant theory. This pushed literalness even further into the shadows. I tend to be more descriptionist than prescriptive. Prescriptive tends to take on overtones of directing and controlling thought. I think there is a time and place for both, but generally, I shy from manipulation. Grammar, then, has in post-modern times, been seen as prescriptive, as validating an ethnocentric view of a privileged class, and thus, in the spirit of times, has become less emphasized.

(In my opinion, Dr. Hada seems to be saying that literal meanings have fallen into the background due to the need of the non-academics to seperate themselves from the "elitist", as well as the post-modern push towards theory rather than plain-text readings. On a side note, he brings up how the two polar opposite schools of literal and theoretic seem to strengthen the followers of one or the other. In other words, those who read things literally do so to seperate themselves from the theoretical readers, and vice versa - each finding a need to think the way they do by the very existence of the opposing view. It's almost like an academic-commoner gang war.)

Pinker? Yes please.

(Inappropriate opinion-based response)

I really liked the chances this Pinker fellow took. He made bold statements about the proper-usage of English, and took a couple of stabs at conservative elitist views on grammar (take that SNOOTS).

The first example to come to mind, in regards to proper-usage, involved a parent-child dispute. "I could care less," the child says. Pinker believes the parent might point out how that is an incorrect way to get that point across. If you COULD care less, you do. You are trying to say that you care the least amount you can, which should be said, "I couldn't care less," (or, "I don't care.") Pinker pokes the parent in the eye with the idea that the angst-filled child is employing sarcasm. Oh, the greatness that is sarcasm. The children are saying they could care less, but meaning the opposite. Pinker believes this is because we all have an innate and natural grasp of correctness, as far as language.

As much as I like that idea, and as much as it might be true, I don't think it's true here. I think the parent doesn't see it as sarcasm. This is not a common sarcastic phrase. Not even the child sees it as sarcasm. I have personally never heard either version of the phrase spoken sarcastically. This mistake really is a mistake.

The eye-poke I was most fond of in this article? The poke in the face of British aristocrats, and consequently, current day SNOOTS. Pinker pointed out that the current-day elitist view on grammar and language dates back to the 18th century. Back in old London, all the old fogies wanted to distinguish themselves from the fodder through use of their great language: English. At the time, Latin was regarded as divine and enlightened, so they decided then to incorporate aspects of Latin into English. Unfortunately for us, the languages are greatly different, grammatically.

This is the root of all the grammatical problems we have today, according to Pinker. I believe that, for the most part, it makes sense. Pinker gives multiple examples of "improper usage" and explains how correct it actually is logically. Usually you can see a line drawn directly back to these early days of elitist SNOOTism.

Report/Response for Beason's Study

The goal of this study was to record the reactions of 14 business people after having read a text with purposefully placed errors. More accurately, the goal was to derive the severity of reactions to certain types of errors of writing in a post-academic setting. An emphasis was placed on the impact on the ethos of the author.

The reasoning behind doing the study was that students will eventually finish their academic career, at which time what is expected of them, as far as writing, is changed - because the audience is changed. The stated change of audience is from professors and teachers to bosses and colleagues. Also, as the article states, the purpose of being taught how to write in college is to be effectively understood through writing when finished with college.

The errors placed within the text consisted of: fragments, mis-spellings (one lesser mis-spelling and three very apparent mis-spellings), fused sentences, and quotation mark errors.

To record the responses, there was a written survey followed by an interview done personally by the researcher (Beason).

The study found, or at least suggested, that "the extent to which errors harm the writer's image is more serious and far reaching than many students and teachers might realize."

My response to this? Of course it effects the writer's image negatively. I don't see how this effect is underestimated. If I read something pot-marked with errors, both apparent and hard to notice, I'd question the intelligence of the author - at least their literary intelligence. Especially in today's world of word processors and spell check, mistakes are hard to make. As I write this, my browser, Mozilla Firefox, informs me of my errors. Just earlier I spelled "realize" as "realise". That is how easy it is to correct yourself. Automated correcting programs aside, I can still see how a constant barrage of mistakes in a writing can negatively effect the audience's view of the author. It's almost the same effect that a Professor at Oxford would get when talking to a family of backwoods hillbillies.

Of course, with that analogy in place, feel free to call me Dewayne Leroy Jenkins.

Report on Wallace's "Tense Present"

This article mainly addresses the issues brought about by the conflicting ideologies within the English language. More specifically, the article addresses the question of which is the most effective and correct way to handle contemporary American usage of the English language.

The author, David Foster Wallace, submits his idea of the "Democratic Spirit" as the answer to the question.

He defines the Democratic Spirit in the following way: "A Democratic Spirit is one that combines rigor and humility, i.e., passionate conviction plus sedulous respect for the convictions of others."

With this, he is referring to his belief that anyone in the position to effect the use of the language should genuinely enjoy the study of the English language, have no interest in furthering themselves, and truly be interested in the beliefs of others.

The author points to how liquid the English language is in its use, and also to the need for one official dialect. He also points out how most everyone has more than one dialect at their disposal, and the knowledge of when to use each. According to Wallace, Standard Written English is the default language used by those in power and those with a need for rhetoric.

Later in the article he brings up two opposing view points. One being Descriptivism, the other Prescriptivism. He picks apart each idea, and on a few occasions, responds directly to certain followers of the ideas in a negative manor.

However, he points to one person which he believes embodies his idea of the Democratic Spirit. He uses this man, by the name of Garner, to explain and exemplify his idea's usefulness.

Initial Response to "Tense Present"

I can understand how in class it was discussed that David Foster Wallace is good at going in and out of different dialects. However, it seemed to me that within this piece his primary dialect is the same he would use when talking to friends. It was witty, sometimes sarcastic, and a little quirky for most of the article. Rarely, I sensed a tinge of self-given superiority, especially when he was referring to the opposing viewpoints on the methods that should be used when defining words and setting grammatical rules.

It seemed to me that a good bulk of the article addressed his ideal method and state of mind for use in setting those rules and definitions. He called the necessary factor a "Democratic Spirit." In his words , "A democratic spirit is one that combines rigor and humility, i.e., passionate conviction plus sedulous respect for the convictions of others."

In other words, those in the position to change and define our accepted English language (and write books that will do such things, such as dictionaries) should be someone without bias, with a great respect and love for the English language, and without a need or want to further themselves. (One such person he points out is a fellow by the name of Garner). This is a very logical statement, which I happen to agree with.

He also points out the flaws in the ideas of two groups which he calls "descriptivists" and "prescriptivists."

The way I read it:

Descriptivist: Work under the idea that expression is the most important thing about language. They also apparently back up letting the definitions and rules flow with the population's use of language. Descriptivism apparently took over the U.S. school system around the 1970's.

Prescrptivists: The kind of guys that Wallace refers to as SNOOTS. They are the rule setters. They are the ones with the final word on the language - to hell with the way commoners talk. They do, after all, have actual knowledge of the traditional language and its uses. Why let mis-use turn into the right thing?

I personally lean a little more towards descriptivist. But I can see why we would need prescriptivists. We need one good solid rule-set and dialect so we can effectively communicate to a wider population. Not everyone speaks valley girl, for example.

And as Wallace writes, our one solid rule-set and dialect is SWE, or Standard Written English. In the part where he quotes his speech to his class, he admits that it is upheld and used mainly by old white guys. And as racist as that might sound, it makes sense. Old white guys started this country and this dialect - this spin off of Old British English. And of course it has mutated over the years. It has to, because the way we use the language DOES change.

So in my opinion, the best way to handle all of this, all of the rules and definitions, and those in charge - the best way is to merge the two. Have a solid foundation and universal language with set rules. But acknowledge that uses will change within different dialects and that expression is indeed very important (as well as being understood). Of course, this goes along with the idea of "Democratic Spirit." To be democratic, you have to allow all possibilities. Hmm. Of course, you also end up voting and doing away with the other possibilities. Maybe we should all pick our favorite viewpoint and fight for its life?

A response to Mulroy

Within the first chapter of his book, entitled, "The War Against Grammar," David Mulroy strongely and openely gives his opinion on the teaching methods (and the lack thereof) for English Grammar in America.

He opens with showing the reader a response to an evaluations for his grammar course that a student gave. The student, having been asked if the purpose of the grammar course was fulfilled, replied, "There was no purpose." This is useful because it shows that:

1. The author, Mulroy, teaches Grammar himself and therefore is credible.
2. Current-day students don't know, or at least don't enjoy, much about grammar.

I can see why he'd respond like that. Actually, I can see several possible reasons why. When presented with something one doesn't understand, one tends to dislike and render useless the presented something. Also, when one knows of alternative means of doing something, other means serve no purpose other than doing things differently with the same outcome.

However, according to Mulroy, it isn't the same outcome. Students understand grammar enough to survive just by being surrounded by the verbal use of the language. But, when it comes to disecting, reconstructing, labeling, and learning about different aspects of English or other languages, they can't. Grammar is a vital and foundational aspect of language that leads to a direct understanding of more advanced aspects of the language. In other words, you can't teach anyone advanced ideas until they understand the basics correctly.

Mulroy also points out a continual lack of grammatical knowledge due to multiple factors. He brings up the NCTE (National Council of Teachers of English) and how they have, for a time and to this day, backed up the idea that grammar is a lesser subject in regards to teaching English. A shift has been made to the emphasis of exression, rather than an emphasis of the particulars of the language. He draws a direct line of blame back to several outspoken individuals who spoke against the teaching of Grammar. People such as Peter Elbow who believed grammar distracted people from fully expressing because of the preoccupation with being correct with grammar. He also draws a line of blame back to the repeating cycle of clueless teachers and students. Teachers who weren't taught about grammar can't teach their students, who may end up teaching themseleves.

In my opinion, students really aren't taught about grammar as well as they should be today. I personally only remember being taught about the titles of certain types of words (like Noun and Verb). But really, I personally believe that expression is the most important thing about language. Grammar can enhance the ability to express, and it can also aid in the initial understanding of how to express, so grammar is a needed tool. Therefore, I think grammar should be initially learned and understood and then the shift to expression should be made.

Grammar, the beautiful non-abused step-child

I can't recall what a step-child is right now. I think maybe it is the child of a person who married into having said child under their parenting control. So really, the child is not their seed, and as a result, the child is not treated equally compared to the other (more useful) kids. That last paragraph should have either made the title make more sense or confuse you.

From here on out, Grammar is just a child, there is no step involved. The other kids, while not involved in our story, are the allegorical, and more openely taught, subjects of english teaching. The parents are current-day teachers. I'll leave the role filled by the neighbors for the reader to decypher.

According to most:

Grammar was once loved by her parents. They bragged about her non-stop every chance they got at the neighborhood parties. So much so that the neighbors got tired of the very mention of Grammar's name. But, Grammar's parents knew that it was best that the neighbors understood everything about Grammar, so they kept on talking about her.

According to few (and drawing from a certain someone who wrote a certain book for a certain class):

The constant nagging by the neighbors eventually got to Grammar's parents, because they were rather easily influenced individuals. A neighbor even went as far with the hate of Grammar as to start a crusade against Grammar, changing the views of parents nation wide. The Parents eventually broke off their marriage because of all the mental strain brought on by the neighbor's dislike for Grammar. Grammar lived life as an orphan after that, never being spoken of again by her parents.

What seems to be happening today (also drawing from a certain author of a certain book):

Eventually, Grammar's mother decided to take Grammar back in and give her a home. However, in the time between getting a divorce, and reclaiming Grammar, mother lived as a street-side prostitute who also worked as an auctioneer. This way of living lead to mother being very weak and without most of her voice. As a direct effect, mother could hardly speak of Grammar to the neighbors. Father ignored Grammar without remorse. The neighbors were happy, but upon entering as a student at the local college, they find that they have a hard time being taught English and writing.

...

In other words, teachers once taught grammar. Students and other people didn't enjoy it. At some point a movement occured leading to grammar no longer being taught (to the same degree). Now people are realizing what happens when grammar isn't taught.

What happens? I don't know, but it has something to do with prostitution and divorce.

In the beginning:

I had a horrible time. Well, maybe not a horrible time. I can at least say I had a draining time. What exactly am I speaking of? What exactly drained me to the extent of expressing it through text over the internet? The answer: my first few days of my third year of college.

Yes, I know, there are people starving in Africa. Of course someone out there is having a harder time than me; things like this happen. We all live and thrive off of the lessoning of others. We kill to eat and degrade to feel better. Pretty much, within humanity and most things involved, happiness or betterment can not be achieved without some sort of detriment to something or someone else.

Assuming the idea just brought up is truth, then where is all the happiness being sucked out of students going? Is the evil Space Pope syphoning it off? Is Count Absorbant Sponge Cake absorbing it all? The answer to those questions is no. There was no point to the last paragraph, but I hope it entertained you.

The happiness really doesn't go anywhere by the way, we just allow it to vanish. There are a select few things that really do drain happiness; death and family get-togethers for example. But for the most part, we are the ones in charge of the happiness/sadness ratio.

There really is no absolute reason for my current drained state. I can name off a few of candidates, but as already stated, it is up to me whether or not these things drain me. Here is the list of possible draining factors:

1. More involved classes. I'm an excellent note and test taker. I can even write. Anything else and I have to try for it.

2. A partially new job. I don't like not knowing things. At work, that is all I do.

3. Family strife. I don't like arguments. I cause them by living though.

But, in the end, I'm sure I'll be fine. I'll cope and chill with the Space Pope.